Talk:Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine

April negotiations
, what are the problems with the sources I used here? Foreign Affairs is a well-known media outlet and one of the authors of the article is Fiona Hill (presidential advisor). The second source I've used (Ukrainska Pravda) might be biased towards the Ukrainian side but isn't known for fakes either. When you wrote "Does not fully represent reliable sources" did you mean that I misinterpreted the sources or that they are not reliable? If it's the former you need to explain your reasoning. Alaexis¿question? 17:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As has already been explained by Ermenrich in the discussion I linked to in my edit summary (Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine), the problem is that the addition attributes the cessation of peace talks only to Boris Johnson's visit, even though the Ukrainska Pravda article clearly says that "The first thing was the revelation of the atrocities, rapes, murders, massacres, looting, indiscriminate bombings and hundreds and thousands of other war crimes committed by Russian troops in the temporarily occupied Ukrainian territories". Kleinpecan (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added this as the first reason according to Ukrainska Pravda. Once we have more reports we'll know which of these reasons was stronger. Alaexis¿question? 19:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is important to mention the second reason also, because the UK was to provide a security guarantee under the proposed agreement, and Johnson was withholding it under the circumstances. The English version mistranslates the original article in Ukrainian on this key point. I will try to rewrite the section later. IntrepidContributor (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

New Reuters piece - Putin had a deal and rejected it
This should go in the article: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/exclusive-war-began-putin-rejected-ukraine-peace-deal-recommended-by-his-aide-2022-09-14/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=twitter

- Vladimir Putin's chief envoy on Ukraine told the Russian leader as the war began that he had struck a provisional deal with Kyiv that would satisfy Russia's demand that Ukraine stay out of NATO, but Putin rejected it and pressed ahead with his military campaign, according to three people close to the Russian leadership.

Two of the three sources said a push to get the deal finalized occurred immediately after Russia's Feb. 24 invasion. Within days, Kozak believed he had Ukraine's agreement to the main terms Russia had been seeking and recommended to Putin that he sign an agreement, the sources said.

It says Putin rejected the deal because he had decided to annex parts of Ukraine. Kremlin denies it of course. —Ermenrich (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Article name currently contains year of initial invasion
Now that the war has dragged on well into 2023, and peace negotiations continue sporadically, the title: "2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations" is no longer accurate. Any suggestions for something better? Yadsalohcin (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 30 May 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. WP:BARTENDER. (closed by non-admin page mover) C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 00:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations → Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations – This article includes information about the Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations that did not occur in 2022, but rather in 2023. I would also support a move to 2022–present Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations OR Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations (2022–present) if disambiguation is needed in this article's title to differentiate it from previous Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations, such as the Minsk agreements. However, I do believe that Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations is the ideal title, seeing as it's parent article, Russian invasion of Ukraine, does not have disambiguation to differentiate it from previous Russian invasions of Ukraine. Treetoes023 (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. What negotiations in 2023?
 * That said, Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations (2022–present) could be acceptable, but why not Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Specifying the context is necessary in light of over seven years of Minsk agreements negotiations. Ignoring their existence is recentism, regardless of WP:otherstuff. —Michael Z. 15:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support a move to Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the reason I didn't suggest it is because it never occurred to me lol.
 * The information I was referring to was the stuff in these sections: § January 2023, § March 2023, § April 2023, § May 2023, and § Chinese peace proposal. – Treetoes023 (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, those sections mention no actual negotiations between the warring parties. It is all about “negotiation-adjacent” statements and posturing, and they don’t make me think the article needs to be renamed. —Michael Z. 01:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, those sections mention no actual negotiations between the warring parties. It is all about “negotiation-adjacent” statements and posturing, and they don’t make me think the article needs to be renamed. —Michael Z. 01:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * The article 1918 Russia–Ukraine negotiations exists. The proposed title cannot be a plausible option. Support either "Peace negotiations in (or rather during) the Russian invasion of Ukraine" and if not, "Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations (2022–present)". Super   Ψ   Dro  10:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Confusing "negotations" with "talks"
The subtopics "Peace talks" under the topic "Negotations" are confusing for me. Peace negotations stopped since 2022. There is indeed a lot of talking. Yet both parties (aggressor Russia and Ukraine) have not been in any known new peace negotations nor have they resumed any peace negotations yet. Might bee there is a phase of pre-negotations for a second round of negotations or whatever. 5glogger (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Strongly inclined to agree- seems it was only the 'Peace talks: First phase of invasion (24 February to 7 April 2022)' which were true 'negotiations' with both parties around the table- since then it has been more a sequence of position statements from either side and commentaries/ exhortations from third parties. I propose changing the 'First phase' title to 'Peace negotiations: First phase of invasion (24 February to 7 April 2022)' to distinguish the change in nature of the events reported here. Yadsalohcin (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Subtopic "Peace talks: Second phase of invasion (7 April to 5 September)" makes the impression that there have been no peace talks before. To my knowledge there have been "peace talks" around a very oversized desk with Putin stating no invasion planned. If "peace talks" are relevant to this article (which I doubt), you should try to bring them in a systematic order of relevant topics. 5glogger (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

NATO membership of Finland and Sweden
I had deleted this as the relevance of the membership of scandinavian countries to this article about peace negotiations (regarding Russia/Ukraine) is not given in my opinion. Somehow my deletion was reverted in connection with a more general revert. IPs joined the actions and asked for arguments. 5glogger (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, removed it again. Alaexis¿question? 09:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Un-encyclopedic detail
As events have worn on, this article has developed a WP:RECENTISM problem. I suggest block-copying most of it to a new "Timeline of..." article and refocusing this one on the key events and negotiating positions, so this can read like an informative encyclopedia article. Sennalen (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * There is also a deluge of opinions, rumors, and WP:CRYSTALBALL guesses to discard. Sennalen (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Istanbul communique
@Manyareasexpert, thanks for adding this section. Some information is now duplicated in Timeline and in Istanbul communique sections. What are your thoughts about the proper structure of the article? Alaexis¿question? 21:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! "Timeline" is just an extensive collection of news messages and should be reworked using overview sources, as soon as there is a volunteer for that. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

"almost reached agreement"?
That's the narrative of pro-Kremlin propaganda, not reality. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We need sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Charap and Radenko are political scientists. They studied several versions of the draft agreement, interviewed participants in the talks and officials in several Western governments, and reviewed publicly statements by and interviews with Ukrainian and Russian officials, and compared their evidence with the timeline of events and the source (currently [7]) is provided. Whether or not Wikipedians think that Charap and Radenko correctly drew conclusions from the several versions of the draft agreement and their interviews and the public statements and interviews with UA and RU officials, this remains the closest thing to an objective, evidence-based analysis that we have so far. Boud (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

UNDUE only makes sense if there are evidence-based analyses that have been excluded or given too little weight
added a WP:UNDUE tag arguing for more balance with respect to the Charap and Radchenko analysis.

The analysis of Charap and Radchenko is based on several versions of the draft agreement, interviewed participants in the talks and officials in several Western governments, and reviewed publicly statements by and interviews with Ukrainian and Russian officials, and compared their evidence with the timeline of events (Wikitext summary, but read the source to check). Are there any other analyses based on a fair body of evidence like this, rather than just educated guesses? This analysis of the data has attracted media attention and as far as I know is the only analysis of systematic collection of data that we are aware of. If there are other evidence-based analyses, then let's add them.

If there are no other evidence-based analyses but just "I don't like it" reactions (by notable people), I don't see how the UNDUE tag is justified. The Jakub Kumoch sentence is only justified by him being a notable person - it doesn't seem like he has analysed a body of evidence like Charap and Radchenko did. Boud (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a fresh info on the topic: Ukraine-Russia Peace Is as Elusive as Ever. But in 2022 They Were Talking. - The New York Times (archive.ph) and The Sticking Points That Kept Russia and Ukraine Apart - The New York Times (archive.org), a volunteer is needed to integrate these. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, those definitely need to be used for a major expansion of the section. Based on both thematic content and chronology, not just adding a chronology of discoveries of documents, which are a meta-question of only indirect interest. Boud (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I recommend that in parallel with preparing a summary of key points of the two NYT articles, you check and fix any errors in the table in Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The geopolitical ecosystem in which peace and armed conflict takes place is a dynamical system with many parameters, with the number of parameters considered relevant varying since the early 2022 negotiations and depending on which parties define the list. Documenting the state of these parameters in the early 2022 negotiations helps see how these parameters have evolved in the views of the parties involved.Depending on how much material you add, splitting off Istanbul Communiqué may start to be justified. I would propose the article scope to include the negotiations leading up to it and the April draft treaty together as a single topic, i.e. not just the Istanbul Communiqué, strictly speaking, on its own. Boud (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)